3 ms·

What uses of state power do you believe are permissible?

elicash 8y ago
The pros and cons of unions and right to work have been endlessly debated. But the question is one of if you believe unions should be democratic institutions or if you think any number of employees should be able to opt-out OR opt-in without the entire workforce being onboard. So for example, should unions be recognized that are just two people in a team of 50? Currently federal law says no, no matter what state you're in. You can't be in a union unless a majority of the voting bargaining unit says yes. Same for no. If a majority says no, no union for anybody.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  Yes, I think that should be allowed, but only with binding effect for the employees in the union, not the others. Certain protected concerted activities are already allowed with even 2 out of 50 employees. E.g. a a man could legally go to his employer saying "please fix [my female colleague]'s salary to be more in line with what you're paying me, since she's performing comparably. I feel strongly about this and might not stay here if this gap persists." The employer may value his services more than hers due to sexism or personal relationships, so this could help - and is NLRA-protected even without a union, assuming neither is a supervisor and both are in the US private sector.
  - elicash 8y ago
    I appreciate the consistency. I disagree and think in both cases it should be democratic, but your views are certainly valid.
JackFr 8y ago
I have no problem with constitutional, democratically arrived at state powers, which at this time what I described above is, or at least is considered to be. But we should call out rent-seeking for what it is. In so doing, sometimes democracies change their laws. Also, in so far as public employee unions are little more than PACs dumping dues largely into elections, mandatory contributions due raise a free speech issue. By becoming a public school teacher, I am in fact a sponsor of a candidate I may loathe.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I feel that many of the people complaining about "rent seeking" by unions are perfectly fine with the same actions taken by large companies, who happen to have far, far, far more power and impact.
- ordinaryradical 8y ago
  You're misusing rent-seeking here. Rent-seeking would be if the union were attempting to extract these dues without returning a meaningful service to the worker--but membership needs to be obligated, systemically, for the negotiating power to be retained. This is how you get two truly corporate individuals determining compensation through negotiation. See other replies elsewhere for more details on why this works.
mmirate 8y ago
How about "none"? The state is, by definition, a monopoly, with all the usual ill effects upon the "customers". We see these ill effects all the time, from the big corporations that the state helps to prop-up against their inherent diseconomies of scale. Yet magically the state is excluded from the sorts of criticisms that are daily leveled (rightfully so) at Facebook, Microsoft, etc.
- detcader 8y ago
  It is weird how there's no criticism or activism against the US government. Edward Snowden and Barrett Brown are Russian psyoperatives, you see, along with Glenn Greenwald and the Intercept and the New York Press Club Awards For Journalism they won, and
  - mmirate 8y ago
    It's not just about privacy and the Fourth Amendment; I'll admit that my examples were limited, but there aren't many unambiguous non-localized monopolists outside the tech industry. It's more generally the problem that there can only be one single federal policy, and one single territorial policy per territory; and that therefore, any disagreements of policy can only be resolved by imposition of tyranny over one group by the other. Setting aside the inherent evil of tyranny, it is also readily observable that anyone with sufficient time and resources can gain a tyrannical majority (either in elections or in the legislative bodies themselves) and that this prize is so valuable that there is no system by which corruption can be prevented. Ergo, the state is inefficient at best, and evil at worst.

The pros and cons of unions and right to work have been endlessly debated. But the question is one of if you believe unions should be democratic institutions or if you think any number of employees should be able to opt-out OR opt-in without the entire workforce being onboard. So for example, should unions be recognized that are just two people in a team of 50? Currently federal law says no, no matter what state you're in. You can't be in a union unless a majority of the voting bargaining unit says yes. Same for no. If a majority says no, no union for anybody.

jkaplowitz 8y ago
Yes, I think that should be allowed, but only with binding effect for the employees in the union, not the others. Certain protected concerted activities are already allowed with even 2 out of 50 employees. E.g. a a man could legally go to his employer saying "please fix [my female colleague]'s salary to be more in line with what you're paying me, since she's performing comparably. I feel strongly about this and might not stay here if this gap persists." The employer may value his services more than hers due to sexism or personal relationships, so this could help - and is NLRA-protected even without a union, assuming neither is a supervisor and both are in the US private sector.
- elicash 8y ago
  I appreciate the consistency. I disagree and think in both cases it should be democratic, but your views are certainly valid.

JackFr 8y ago

I have no problem with constitutional, democratically arrived at state powers, which at this time what I described above is, or at least is considered to be. But we should call out rent-seeking for what it is. In so doing, sometimes democracies change their laws. Also, in so far as public employee unions are little more than PACs dumping dues largely into elections, mandatory contributions due raise a free speech issue. By becoming a public school teacher, I am in fact a sponsor of a candidate I may loathe.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
I feel that many of the people complaining about "rent seeking" by unions are perfectly fine with the same actions taken by large companies, who happen to have far, far, far more power and impact.
ordinaryradical 8y ago
You're misusing rent-seeking here. Rent-seeking would be if the union were attempting to extract these dues without returning a meaningful service to the worker--but membership needs to be obligated, systemically, for the negotiating power to be retained. This is how you get two truly corporate individuals determining compensation through negotiation. See other replies elsewhere for more details on why this works.

mmirate 8y ago

How about "none"? The state is, by definition, a monopoly, with all the usual ill effects upon the "customers". We see these ill effects all the time, from the big corporations that the state helps to prop-up against their inherent diseconomies of scale. Yet magically the state is excluded from the sorts of criticisms that are daily leveled (rightfully so) at Facebook, Microsoft, etc.

detcader 8y ago
It is weird how there's no criticism or activism against the US government. Edward Snowden and Barrett Brown are Russian psyoperatives, you see, along with Glenn Greenwald and the Intercept and the New York Press Club Awards For Journalism they won, and
- mmirate 8y ago
  It's not just about privacy and the Fourth Amendment; I'll admit that my examples were limited, but there aren't many unambiguous non-localized monopolists outside the tech industry. It's more generally the problem that there can only be one single federal policy, and one single territorial policy per territory; and that therefore, any disagreements of policy can only be resolved by imposition of tyranny over one group by the other. Setting aside the inherent evil of tyranny, it is also readily observable that anyone with sufficient time and resources can gain a tyrannical majority (either in elections or in the legislative bodies themselves) and that this prize is so valuable that there is no system by which corruption can be prevented. Ergo, the state is inefficient at best, and evil at worst.